>>38538
>Soros
Oh christ not this shit again. Soros is like middle management, kids. Come back when you know who The Waltons and Carlos Slim are and who *the** fund.

>>38545
>yes goy, pay no attention to the Jew
>it's those other goyim, the Waltons and Slim that are fucking you over

>>38557
Either The Waltons or Carlos Slim could buy out Soros before breakfast and still have 50 billion left over for lunch. Learn who the true master are.

>>38538
>RT opinion article
>Cites baseless, racist insinuations from a youtube vlogger

Pretty pathetic. You want to see what a real hatchet-job looks like?
http://www.interpretermag.com/putins-people-are-not-happy-with-us/

>>38567
I'll never understand how one side can demonize the rich on one side and lionize "theirs" (as if they have any loyalty to the common man) with such fervor.
If you hate one guy spending a small amount of his wealth to influence the world more than 4 billion commoners could, you should hate any of them doing it.

Soros is not a radical.

>>38585
The word "radical" lost all political meaning in the US after the Tea Party takeover of 2010. The people they used to call 'radicals' before that weren't so radical afterward.

>>38577
Because it is not and has never been about stabbing at "the rich". It's never been about morals or ideology. It has always been about the gaining of power. Soros funds [group]. [group] is the way for [individual] to gain political and economic power. Therefore, Soros is good, and [people who do not fund group that offers political and economic power] are bad. Saul Alinsky put this in simple terms.

>>38598
Name names or this post is null & void.

>>38637
Before the Tea Party, people like Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor were considered the radicals on the right. Since then you have everyone from Ted Cruz to the guy who called Obama a liar that time at the State of The Union. (Congressman Joe Miller R-GA) making Paul Ryan look like a middle of the road neocon while Eric Cantor lost his election for not being 'conservative' enough.

>>38585
Soros is proTrump.

>>38641
Please elaborate.

>>38641
No, he is not. Soros is funding Clinton and Sanders.

For fuck's sake Soros funds groups to attack Trump rallies, shit on his campaign/supporters, and said he's doing the work of ISIS.

>>38538
Soros is every pol jew meme come to life. He is genuinely evil.

>>38634

So basically Soros is a good guy because he funds groups that share your ideology?

>>38639
Ah, I see what you're saying.

A few months ago I saw Ron Paul get accused of being too moderate for refusing to go along with the "ban all Muslims" schtick from Trump. This is Mr. Ron "Dismember the Federal Reserve and legalize Heroin" Paul being called a "moderate".

Weird world we live in right now.

>>38577
Monkeysphere

>>38538
This is the guy that went straight to the nazis to tell them where his jewish family,friends,acquintaces and everyone he knew was located.
He sold everyone he knew...

And he is jewish.

And he funds(bribes) politicians,

Think-tanks

NGOs

Governments

Academia across the US,West Europe and East Europe

I'm sure he gives money free of an agenda.

>>38780
This

>>38741
No, ideology is irrelevant. It's a method to gain power.

Soros wants to do things that will make [individual] more powerful. Therefore, he is [good]. What is "good" is irrelevant. "Holy", "virtuous", "just", "tolerant", "diverse", etc, whatever you want to call it, it's fluff meant to cloak the fact that [individual] wants power.

>>38538

I have a few questions. First, who is Christopher Greene? Why is he credible?

What is Greene actually talking about here? He mentions Soros giving money to Moveon.org. Ok, if the goal is to have no outside funding from the wealthy, this is concerning.

Then he moves on to the Colordao's Republican primary vote. And explains Soros, Clinton, and Obama are the real villians. Wouldn't the funders of the Republican party and the leaders of Colorado's republican party be the villians in this case? Shouldn't we shift to an attack on Cruz's funders?

Then we move back to Democracy Spring and then we reference the CIA and toppling foreign governments.

This whole thing seems absurd and focused on fear mongering rather actually talking about 1) how the wealthy individuals and corporations influence politics via donations to parties, super pacs, and movements. 2) how the "establishment" is making it more difficult for Sanders or Trump to become the dem/rep candidate.

And what is he even trying to say about a constitutional republic. What was the point of this? Is he saying we don't have the right to vote our leaders in? We can still vote for third party candidates and we can write in any name we want on the ballot. (Yes, the parties have huge influences and it is very difficult for a third party candidate to get elected, if not impossible, but this doesn't change whether or not America itself is a constitutional republic). How the formal election and the party run primaries are run are two very different things.

What the hell was this article actually supposed to be about? Wealthy democrats are influencing the system be afraid cause Soros (a man who developed his wealth in America partially due to the stability of our gov, etc.) is going to over throw the gov with the help of the CIA like the American gov did in the arab spring? This is off in tinfoil hat land. Only Russia Today would run this.

>>38874

Found his linkedin account.

Apparently he went to Arizona State for an undergrad degree in finance. Started an online media website. And there is nothing else. But we can contact him if we need someone with event planning skills.